The Australia Institute Feed Items

The hyperbolic scare campaign against the government’s changes to the tax concessions of superannuation continues with almost little care of reality or context.

So let’s give you some.

1. Almost no one will be affected by these changes. 99.5% of Australians currently don’t have more than $3m in super
2. Using figures reported in the Australian Financial Review 97% of all people currently in the labour force will never have more than $3m in super.

So some questions:

1. Do you have more than $3m in super? No? Then nothing changes.
2. Are you ever going to have more than $3m in super? No? Then nothing will change.

At this point, you might be wondering why the big fuss? And you would be right.

To get to $3m worth of super you have to earn an extremely large amount of money your entire working life.

How much money? We’ll let’s create an 18yo  who has just left school and see how they go.

OK, you don’t have any qualifications, but lucky you, you got a job that pays the average full-time wage of $106,277. Feeling good? You should! You are now earning more than 75% of all Australians! Not bad for someone with only a Year 12 certificate!

The Australia Institute is proud to release a unique, authoritative and accurate assessment of Chinese foreign policy commentary, a first for Australia.

Postdoctoral Fellow at The Australia Institute, Dr. Fangcheng (Frank) Yuan, has combined his extraordinary research and language skills to deliver his paper, Chinese Foreign Policy Brief.

Dr Yuan has drawn on publications, interviews, statements and other sources reflecting the foreign policy views of Chinese officials and state-affiliated analysts, covering four themes:

• The exchange of trade restrictions between China and the US
• Taiwan’s reunification with China and other countries’ stance on the matter, including China’s misrepresentation of Australia’s position
• Tensions between the US and its European allies
• The Russia-Ukraine War

“China’s messaging, aimed at international and domestic audiences alike, has become increasingly colourful and self-referential, suggesting a sense of confidence matching the content of Beijing’s messages,” said Dr Frank Yuan, Postdoctoral Fellow at The Australia Institute.

“Beijing has treated the trade war as a malicious attack on China’s right to development by the US.

“While Beijing clearly disagrees with the sanctions on Russia, it is not shy to signal its discomfort with Russia’s use of force, even if it sympathises with Moscow’s security concerns.”

But in the case of Climate Active, it’s the government itself running the scheme — and promoting it.

While claiming to crack down on greenwashing, the Australian government has been quietly enabling it for years.

I previously worked on the Climate Active program and understand the intent behind it.

But intent is no substitute for integrity.

And the scheme’s reliance on carbon offsets — combined with limited transparency, no assessment of real-world emissions trajectories, and endorsement of claims that may be impossible to prove — has turned it into a high-risk proposition.

Climate Active is not just misleading — it’s dangerous. It exposes businesses to legal risk, investors to financial risk, and consumers to outright deception. And now, with Energy Australia taken to court over its long-standing “carbon neutral” claims, the consequences are finally surfacing.

Here’s how the scheme works. Climate Active certifies organisations and products as “carbon neutral” if they offset their emissions using carbon credits — even if those emissions are increasing.

The offsets themselves are often of questionable quality and permanence. But once the box is ticked, the government puts its name behind the claim.

If you rocked up to cast your ballot on polling day a few weeks ago, you may have noticed it was a bit quieter than it used to be. More and more Australians are forgoing their democracy sausage – and more importantly – voting before the final days of the election campaign. In fact, only 45% of Australians voted on election day, a record low that could be hampering Australians’ collective democracy.

Despite the shortest pre-poll period in living memory, with booths opening only 11 days out from the election (over a week later than in 2019), Australians set pre-poll records several times during the campaign.

Figure 1: Pre-poll votes in the days before Federal elections 

(Source: AEC)

On this episode of Dollars & Sense, Greg explains why Australia has won the fight against inflation, complains about the RBA a bit, and appraises latest gender pay gap data. Plus: air horns!

This discussion was recorded on Thursday 22 May 2025 and things may have changed since recording.

Order After America: Australia and the new world order or become a foundation subscriber to Vantage Point at australiainstitute.org.au/store.

Host: Greg Jericho, Chief Economist, the Australia Institute and Centre for Future Work // @grogsgamut

Host: Elinor Johnston-Leek, Senior Content Producer, the Australia Institute // @elinorjohnstonleek

Show notes:

‘You would think after nearly three years of being wrong, the RBA might start to question its economics. But no’ by Greg Jericho, Guardian Australia (May 202 5)

This week, the National Party announced they were leaving the Coalition to sit on the crossbench, which would make the Liberal Party the sole Opposition in the Australian Parliament. (Though talk of reuniting has already begun).

If the Nationals do see through their departure from the Opposition, there will be about as many MPs sitting on the crossbenches as there are in Opposition: perhaps 27 or 28 Nationals, Greens, independents and minor party MPs, and about the same number of Liberal MPs. This far exceeds what was previously described as the “record crossbench” of 16 elected in 2022 – and is the largest crossbench since the Coalition was formed in 1923.

But as the Australia Institute wrote during the election campaign, Australia did not federate in 1945. Large crossbenches were commonplace after Federation in 1901, sometimes exceeding not just the Opposition in size but the Government as well.

Is it a safe and secure place for people to live? Or is it a place to make a small minority of people rich?

The answer is important because the housing market over the last two decades has shown that it can’t be both.

Since the turn of the century, investors have flooded into the market, pushing up house prices, outbidding first home buyers, and making housing less affordable.

With the Reserve Bank now cutting official interest rates, house prices are going to grow even faster, and these rising house prices are going to attract even more investors.

After an election where the issue of housing affordability was hotly debated, first home buyers struggling to break into the market are likely to watch as rapidly rising prices leave them further behind.

The major party’s policies on housing affordability fell into two categories.

The first are those that increase supply, which in the long run will make housing more affordable.

The second are those that gave some financial advantage to a particular group of home buyers, most often first-home buyers, that would increase demand, push up prices, and ultimately make housing less affordable.

Overall, the major party’s offerings on housing are best described as a dumpster fire of dumb stuff.

What neither side offered were policies that deal with the underlying cause of unaffordable housing, the explosion in investor demand for housing.

Since election day, conservative media have decided to begin a scare campaign around the government’s proposed changes to the tax concessions on superannuation. Currently, the earnings in superannuation funds are taxed at just 15%. This is a significant tax concession for most people and a very large one for the richest in Australia, who would be paying a 45% rate if super was taxed like income.

This means that the richest in Australia are getting a 30% tax break on their super, so it is little wonder that many of them are using super not to save for their retirement, but to avoid paying tax.

Superannuation tax breaks are being abused

The entire reason for the superannuation tax concessions is to encourage people to save for their retirement so they will not need to go on the age pension. This, in theory, reduces the burden on the government.

But the problem is that when you offer the richest people in Australia a 30% tax break, they will take advantage of it. The richest 10% – most of whom would never be eligible for the age pension receive $22bn in tax breaks by having money in super rather than having it taxed like income.

On this episode of Follow the Money, the Australia Institute’s Joshua Black and Jack Thrower join Glenn Connley to discuss the enormous cost of going to university, the absurdity of university vice-chancellors being paid more than the Treasurer, and why the practice of using international students as a political football must end.

This discussion was recorded on Tuesday 20 May 2025 and things may have changed.

Order After America: Australia and the new world order or become a foundation subscriber to our Vantage Point series and save 25% on the Australia Institute website.

Guest: Joshua Black, Postdoctoral Fellow, the Australia Institute // @joshuablackjb

Guest: Jack Thrower, Senior Economist, the Australia Institute // ‪@jack-thrower

Host: Glenn Connley, Senior Media Advisor, the Australia Institute // @glennconnley

Show notes:

And it doesn’t involve changes to capital gains tax or negative gearing, which would be more effective but, strangely, the government won’t touch.

It’s a lever which the government has pulled before – and it worked.

The government could direct the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) to force lenders to limit the number of loans they offer to investors.

In 2014, with investors flooding the property market and prices out of control, APRA introduced a 10% limit on the increase in the number of investment loans which banks could offer. Then, in 2017, it put a 30% limit on the number of interest-only loans which could be offered.

By limiting the number of investment loans, a natural consequence was that interest rates for investors went up. Interest rates for owner-occupiers stayed the same.

For the first time since investors sent property prices soaring in the early 2000s, the market was tipped in favour of owner-occupiers over investors.

Borrowers have endured two full years of pain, as rates shot up quickly but started coming down slowly.

People are still hurting, and there’s no need to keep inflicting unnecessary additional pain.

“The Australia Institute welcomes the news that the RBA has finally acted by reducing the cash rate by 25 basis points,” said Greg Jericho, Chief Economist at The Australia Institute.

“This cut goes some small way to redressing the failure to cut rates at its April meeting.

“Households have been smashed by the rate rises which began in May 2022. Almost half of the increase in cost-of-living pressure on employee households is attributable to interest rate rises.

“The pain of these rate rises continues. In the first three months of this year, spending on retail was flat as households continued to cut back on spending to pay mortgage bills.

“The Reserve Bank should not end here. Over the past year, unemployment has remained at around 4.1%, and yet in that time, inflation has fallen from 3.8% to 2.4%, and private-sector wage growth has fallen from 4.1% to 3.3%.

“There is no wage price spiral. There is no need for unemployment to rise. The Reserve Bank should focus on achieving full employment.”

The post Australians still hurting. RBA should keep cutting.  appeared first on The Australia Institute.

On the 50th episode of After America, Nick Bryant joins Dr Emma Shortis to reflect on the second Trump presidency, why division is the default in American political history, and what the United States might look like after Trump.

This discussion was recorded on Thursday 15 May 2025 and things may have changed since recording.

Order After America: Australia and the new world order or become a foundation subscriber to Vantage Point at australiainstitute.org.au/store.

Guest: Nick Bryant, author of The Forever War: America’s unending conflict with itself // ‪@nickbryantoz

Host: Emma Shortis, Director, International & Security Affairs, the Australia Institute // @emmashortis

Show notes:

The Forever War: America’s unending conflict with itself by Nick Bryant (2024)

When America Stopped Being Great: a history of the present by Nick Bryant (2020)

Energy Australia has admitted that its Go Neutral scheme, which falsely told customers they could offset their gas and electricity usage, did nothing to stop climate change.

This is a landmark moment in the fight against greenwashing by companies pumping millions of tonnes of emissions into the atmosphere.

Energy Australia owns and operates some of the highest polluting industrial sites in Australia.

Now it admits that carbon offsets cannot undo the damage it causes by burning vast volumes of fossil fuels.

The admission only came after the Parents for Climate group took Energy Australia to the Federal Court over its Go Neutral claims.

ENERGY AUSTRALIA STATEMENT

“Today, Energy Australia acknowledges that carbon offsetting is not the most effective way to assist customers to reduce their emissions and apologises to any customer who felt that the way it marketed its Go Neutral products was unclear.

Energy Australia has now shifted its focus to direct emissions reductions.

Energy Australia acknowledges the importance of consumers understanding the climate impact of products and services offered to them and that offsets are not the most effective means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”

The false carbon neutrality claim of the Go Neutral scheme was certified by the Australian government through its Climate Active program.

On this episode, Allan Behm joins Paul Barclay to discuss Australia’s diplomatic strategy of ‘pre-emptive capitulation’, America’s international bullying and how Australia should use its unrecognised national power.

This discussion was recorded on Monday 24 February 2025 and things may have changed since the recording.

Order What’s the Big Idea? 32 Big Ideas for a Better Australia now, via the Australia Institute website.

Guest: Allan Behm, Special Advisor in International & Security Affairs, the Australia Institute

Host: Paul Barclay, Walkley Award winning journalist and broadcaster // @PaulBarclay

Show notes:  

AUSFTA: A bad deal then. Even worse now. by Jack Thrower, the Australia Institute (March 2025)

With friends like these, After America (February 2025)

Polling – President Trump, security and the US–Australian alliance, the Australia Institute (March 2025)

The Wrap with Amy Remeikis

Well it didn’t take long for it to be business as usual, did it?

Not even two weeks out from a humiliating loss, the Coalition is still pretending it remains just as relevant as ever, with shadow finance minister Jane Hume issuing orders to the government on its planned modest super changes.

In case you need a refresher, Labor plans on lowering the tax break from 30% to 15% on earnings on super balances over $3 million.

So it’s not even the total. It is a tiny change that means people with superannuation balances over $3 million will get a slightly lower tax break on the earnings (like the interest) above $3 million.  Everything under $3 million is untouched.  You may have heard this could end retirement in Australia. It’s such a massive change that it is going to impact a whopping 80,000 people, or 0.5% of the population. Even taking into account inflation, we are talking about a giant 550,000 people from the working population of 14.5 million people.

So please, bring out your violins for the (at most) 3.5% of people this is going to impact, who will be receiving a slightly smaller tax break on their multi-million dollar super earnings, and are already (if you speak to accountants) working to restructure their assets as businesses, so they can maintain a higher tax break.

For many of us, the end of June will mark the return of soft plastic recycling run by the Soft Plastics Taskforce (SPT), which is made up of the three major supermarkets: Woolworths Group, Coles Group and ALDI. But this may be premature since the joint recycling strategy from the Ministry of the Environment and Water and the Ministry of Climate Change and the Environment and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is still developing a plan to recycle legacy soft plastics that have been stockpiled following the collapse of REDcycle. The bins in supermarkets from June mean shoppers will be able to deposit their soft plastics at the front of participating supermarkets nationwide; however, since the capacity to recycle all plastics is not yet a reality, this will only be a trial.

The research explores the declining influence of media endorsements and leaders’ debates on election outcomes.

Key points:

• The 2025 and 2022 elections are the only ones in the past thirty years to have been won by a party without the endorsements of most major newspapers.
• Anthony Albanese leads the first Australian government to have never been endorsed by The Australian since the newspaper was founded in 1964.
• From 1996 to 2019, most Australian newspapers endorsed the winning party, including Kevin Rudd’s 2007 victory.
• This year’s televised leaders’ debates reached 12% of voters, at best.
• The first leaders’ debate, conducted behind a paywall on Sky News, was seen by, at best, 2% of voters.

“The endorsement of newspapers used to be much sought-after, but these days such endorsements are practically irrelevant,” said Joshua Black, report co-author and Postdoctoral Fellow at The Australia Institute.

“Despite the endorsements of all News Corp mastheads and the Australian Financial Review, the coalition suffered a major defeat.

“Anthony Albanese has now won two elections with only a handful of media endorsements.”

“Televised debates are still touted as key events but they are barely watched by voters,” said Skye Predavec, report co-author and Anne Kantor Fellow at The Australia Institute.

On this episode of Dollars & Sense, Elinor returns to discover the economy does in fact still exist, before her and Greg discuss the latest wage data, house prices and Trump blinking on his China tariffs.

This discussion was recorded on Thursday 15 May 2025 and things may have changed since recording.

Order ‘After America: Australia and the new world order’ or become a foundation subscriber to Vantage Point at australiainstitute.org.au/store.

Host: Greg Jericho, Chief Economist, the Australia Institute and Centre for Future Work // @grogsgamut

Host: Elinor Johnston-Leek, Senior Content Producer, the Australia Institute // @elinorjohnstonleek

Show notes:

‘Australia’s wage growth remains solid. But now the recovery needs to be sustained’ by Greg Jericho, Guardian Australia (May 2025)

Economist busts myths on QandA | Richard Denniss highlights, the Australia Institute (April 2025)

Despite the need to reduce absolute greenhouse gas emissions in line with climate science, the government continues to promote carbon offsetting and certify claims of “carbon neutrality” by the fossil fuel industry and other big emitters through its Climate Active scheme.

The Climate Active scheme actively encourages consumers to “make a positive impact right now, by supporting these organisations” without offering any proof that the businesses it certifies are taking climate action or verifying that emissions are being “offset”.

The Australia Institute has previously filed a complaint with the ACCC on the basis that Climate Active may be misleading and deceptive under consumer law.

The Australia Institute’s 2024 Climate of the Nation showed that there is widespread confusion around carbon offsets and carbon neutrality, and that the government should be responsible for verifying claims by industry:

On this episode of Follow the Money, Stephen Long, Walkley Award-winning journalist and Australia Institute Contributing Editor, joins Ebony Bennett to discuss the Murdoch press bogeyman, supporting the public broadcasters and the prospects for major, progressive reforms in the second Albanese term.

This discussion was recorded on Tuesday 13 May 2025 and things may have changed.

Order ‘After America: Australia and the new world order’ or become a foundation subscriber to our Vantage Point series and save 25% on the Australia Institute website.

Guest: Stephen Long, Senior Fellow and Contributing Editor, the Australia Institute // @stephenlongaus

Host: Ebony Bennet, Deputy Director, the Australia Institute // @ebonybennett

Show notes:

Worth a Punt – 2% Levy on Gambling Revenue Could Replace Free-To-Air Advertising Spend by Stephen Long and David Richardson, the Australia Institute (August 2024)

Australia’s Vice Chancellors are among the highest paid in the world, at a time when the institutions they oversee are plummeting down international rankings.

The new analysis, which is now before a Senate Inquiry, recommends sweeping changes to the governance of Australian universities, to deliver better results for students, greater scrutiny of universities’ accounts and a significant increase in transparency within the higher education sector.

The first recommendation is a cap on Vice Chancellor salaries at $430,000 per year, which would more than halve the pay of those currently earning the most.

The submission is now before the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee’s Inquiry on Tertiary Education Legislation Amendment (There For Education, Not Profit) Bill 2025.

The 55 groups congratulate the Prime Minister on his resounding election victory, which they say has delivered a mandate for “optimistic and ambitious” action on climate change.

The letter – published in several newspapers today – points out that, as well as being an existential threat, climate change has intensified the cost-of-living crisis, pushing up energy, grocery and insurance prices.

The signatories call upon the re-elected Albanese government to commit to a fast and fair phase-out of fossil fuels, in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement.

“This is the opportunity of a lifetime for the Prime Minister,” said Mark Ogge, Principal Advisor at The Australia Institute.

“Anthony Albanese can be a leader who finally brings an end to Australia’s destructive fossil fuel addiction, while – at the same time – helping Australians through a cost-of-living crisis.

“The first and most important thing he can do right now is to stop the biggest, most destructive, most unnecessary fossil fuel project in the country: the expansion of the North West Shelf gas export terminal.

“This project would release more than four billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere.

“It would also allow the ongoing destruction of one of Australia’s and the world’s greatest cultural treasures – the 40,000-year-old Murujuga rock engravings. These are eight times older than the pyramids and are being ruined by acid gas emissions from the adjacent gas plant.

On this episode of After America, Elizabeth Pancotti, economic policy specialist and former advisor to Senator Bernie Sanders, joins Dr Emma Shortis to discuss what the second Trump administration is doing to the American economy.

This discussion was recorded on Thursday 8 May 2025 and things may have changed since recording.

Order ‘After America: Australia and the new world order’ or become a foundation subscriber to Vantage Point at australiainstitute.org.au/store.

Guest: Elizabeth Pancotti, Managing Director of Policy and Advocacy, Groundwork Collaborative // @ENPancotti

Host: Emma Shortis, Director, International & Security Affairs, the Australia Institute // @emmashortis

Show notes:

Trump’s tariffs won’t wreck Australia’s economy. But America’s could be cooked. Dollars & Sense (April 2025)

Well, Dutton’s fear-based politics at least.

For the second election in a row, voters have delivered a progressive super-majority to Parliament and now the only thing standing in the way of Labor implementing its progressive platform is Labor.

Dutton has always been a political hardman. Former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull once described him as a “thug” unsuited to being prime minister of a multicultural society like Australia.

After leading in the polls for months ahead of the election, Dutton hardly put a foot right during the campaign. Egged on and amplified by the Murdoch press and a host of right-wing lobby groups, Dutton’s instincts to announce Trump-like policies to sack half of Canberra’s federal public service, blame immigrants, delay climate action with his nuclear distraction and lean hard into the culture wars – decrying the need for Welcome to Country at Anzac Day, ‘wokeness’ in school curriculums and universities – led the Coalition to its worst defeat in decades.

Peter Dutton gave a gracious concession speech on election night. Several Liberal politicians remarked that those comments reflected the Peter Dutton they know in real life, with Nationals senator Bridget McKenzie calling Dutton a “good guy”.

On this episode, Maiy Azize joins Paul Barclay to discuss the housing crisis, how the government stopped directly providing housing and started subsidising private investors, why immigration is not to blame, how the housing crisis is an inequality crisis, why ‘supply’ is not the main problem nor main solution, and why Australia needs to massively invest in social housing.

This discussion was recorded on 20 March 2025, and things may have changed since the recording.

Order What’s the Big Idea? 32 Big Ideas for a Better Australia now, via the Australia Institute website.

Guest: Maiy Azize, national spokesperson, Everybody’s Home and deputy director, Anglicare Australia // @MaiyAzize

Host: Paul Barclay, Walkley Award winning journalist and broadcaster // @PaulBarclay

Show notes:  

Australia’s sick housing joke, Dollars & Sense (March 2025)

Some, including his pledge to introduce a National Firearms Register, have still not been implemented.

12 days after 35 innocent Australians were massacred, then-Prime Minister Howard announced a National Firearms Agreement. He was lauded for his bravery in standing up to the powerful gun lobby. It was considered one of the finest moments of his time in office and remains a key part of his legacy.

But, almost three decades on, the Howard reforms are not living up to their promise.

• Australia still does not have a National Firearms Register.
• Australia still allows minors to hold some licences and operate firearms.
• Australia’s gun control laws vary from state to state, making them difficult to enforce.
• There are now 800,000 more guns in Australia than after the 1996 gun buyback, which saw 650,000 guns taken out of circulation.

“Australians need gun laws that live up to the Howard Government’s bravery and, right now, Australia does not have them,” said Alice Grundy, Research Manager at The Australia Institute.

“The National Firearms Agreement, announced 12 days after the Port Arthur massacre, was ambitious, politically brave and necessary for public safety.

“However, some of the provisions set out way back in May 1996, and reaffirmed by all Australian governments eight years ago, remain unimplemented.

The Pacific Islands Climate Action Network (PICAN) is urging the government to use its mandate from Saturday’s election to replace climate rhetoric with real climate action.

The network has released its analysis of the election result, concluding that the return of the government “is largely a better outcome than a Dutton-led coalition, where climate change action may have seen significant roll-backs and weakening.”

But the report paints a bleak picture of the Albanese government’s first-term record on climate action.

It highlights the gaping divide between what Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said at events like the Pacific Island Forum and what his government actually did to help the “Pacific Family”.

PICAN is urging real action on several key climate areas, including:

Stopping Australia’s expansion of – and reliance on – fossil fuels.

Resolving the significant discrepancies between Australia’s climate commitments and climate actions.

Improving Australia’s grossly inadequate pledges on climate change loss and damage.

Reducing Australia’s reliance on questionable and ineffective carbon offset schemes.

On this episode of Dollars & Sense, Greg and Hayden discuss the election result, Trump’s Hollywood tariffs, and what retail spending figures reveal about the state of economy.

This discussion was recorded on Thursday 8 May 2025 and things may have changed since recording.

Order ‘After America: Australia and the new world order’ or become a foundation subscriber to Vantage Point at australiainstitute.org.au/store.

Host: Greg Jericho, Chief Economist, the Australia Institute and Centre for Future Work // @grogsgamut

Host: Hayden Starr, Digital Media Manager, the Australia Institute // @haydenstarr

Show notes:

‘The Reserve Bank played it safe and didn’t cut interest rates in April – and households suffer’ by Greg Jericho, Guardian Australia (May 2025)

This election result was anything but a vote for the foreign-owned commercial salmon industry.

Independent MP for Clark, Andrew Wilkie, attributes Labor’s success in Braddon – where Anne Urquhart won the seat off the Liberals – to “enormous pork-barrelling” by the ALP.

Braddon takes in Macquarie Harbour, where huge commercial salmon farms are putting the world-renowned Maugean Skate at serious risk of extinction.

Intensive salmon farming in the harbour remains under review.

In Franklin, the epicentre of the state’s salmon industry, first-time candidate, Independent Peter George, achieved a swing of around 6 percent against Labor.

Mr George focused strongly on fixing the salmon industry’s problems and – while he did not win the seat – he did win the vast majority of votes at booths immediately adjacent to where the industry operates.

“The fact that an independent got over 20 percent of the primary vote. That was a very strong anti-salmon vote,” said Independent Member for Clark, Andrew Wilkie.

“Around 80% of the salmon industry is in southeast Tasmania. People living along the coast of the Franklin electorate live with the daily impact of this industry, including dead and decaying chunks of fish washing up on their beaches,” said Eloise Carr, Director, The Australia Institute Tasmania

“That’s where Peter George won the most votes. He also won a 6% swing away from Labor.”

Over the last decade for which data is available, salmon industry revenue has doubled from $543 million in 2013-14 to $1,352 million in 2022-23. Total revenue over the decade was $8,779 million.

Meanwhile, tax paid by the three largest salmon farms has been near-zero. The total combined reported tax payments by Tassal, Huon and SeaLord (owners of Petuna) over this period was $51 million. While obviously tax is paid on profits not revenue, that the total tax paid over 11 years by the salmon industry is just 0.6% of revenue suggests either a deeply unprofitable industry or (more clearly) one where Australians are clearly not getting a fair return.

But wait, there’s less.

As we’ve explained before, the $6m paid since 2019 is all from SeaLord, which also has non-salmon farming activities. Following its takeover of Petuna, SeaLord’s revenue increased, but tax payments decreased. This suggests that Petuna’s salmon operations don’t contribute to SeaLord’s tax payments, but actually reduce them.

On this episode of Follow the Money, Chief Political Analyst Amy Remeikis and Chief Economist Greg Jericho join Ebony Bennett to discuss the election result, the legislative priorities of the new parliament and the future of the conservative side of politics.

This discussion was recorded on Tuesday 6 May 2025 and things may have changed.

Pre-order ‘After America: Australia and the new world order’ or become a foundation subscriber to our Vantage Point series on the Australia Institute website.

Guest: Amy Remeikis, Chief Political Analyst, the Australia Institute // @amyremeikis

Guest: Greg Jericho, Chief Economist, the Australia Institute // @grogsgamut

Host: Ebony Bennet, Deputy Director, the Australia Institute // @ebonybennett

Show notes:

There is no such thing as a safe seat | Fact sheet, the Australia Institute (October 2024)

On this episode of After America, Dr Emma Shortis joins Angus Blackman to discuss whether Anthony Albanese’s massive election victory is part of a global “repudiation” of Trumpism and what new Australia Institute polling reveals about Australians’ views on Trump and the alliance.

This discussion was recorded on Monday 5 May 2025 and things may have changed since recording.

Order ‘After America: Australia and the new world order’ or become a foundation subscriber to Vantage Point at australiainstitute.org.au/store.

Host: Emma Shortis, Director, International & Security Affairs, the Australia Institute // @emmashortis

Host: Angus Blackman, Podcast Producer, the Australia Institute // @angusrb

Show notes:

Polling: Australia-US relations, the Australia Institute (May 2025)

US independence day? Poll shows Australians’ radical shift over Trump, economy, ABC News (April 2025)

The Coalition is done. As far as repudiations go, it doesn’t get much more brutal than what the nation delivered on Saturday night.

The worst result for the Liberal party since Menzies. Its leader turfed out of the Parliament along with most future leadership candidates. Swings against the party in every jurisdiction and most seats, including crucially, the outer suburbs that were supposed to be the new pathway to electoral relevancy.

There is no need to ask the Coalition, or its supporters in the political landscape such as News Corp, what it thinks needs to happen about anything in the future.

As the result became apparent, commentators from within the Coalition and its media arm were arguing that Dutton lost because he didn’t embrace Trump enough.

It’s hard to tell at this point whether this isn’t just some long term embedded espionage project coming to fruition. Voters didn’t just reject Dutton and his ilk, they consigned them to irrelevancy.

But will Labor? Because we are about to find out whether Labor has the bravery to govern without the approval of right-wingers.

This victory isn’t a thumping endorsement of Labor – it’s a rejection of mask-off, hard-right politics. But history tells us Labor won’t see it that way, and that’s not good for anyone.

Integrity experts, including former judges, ombudsmen and leading academics, have signed an open letter, coordinated by The Australia Institute and Fairer Future and published today in The Canberra Times, calling on the newly elected Parliament of Australia to address weaknesses in Australian political integrity.

The open letter warns that a decade of decline in agencies tasked with securing good governance has led to an integrity deficit in Australian politics and made it harder for Parliament to hold the executive government to account.

The signatories, including former IBAC Commissioner The Hon Robert Redlich AM KC, former Commonwealth Ombudsman Philippa Smith AM, and Geoffrey Watson SC, Director of the Centre for Public Integrity, call on the Parliament of Australia to recognise that the integrity arm of government deserves independence, resourcing and recognition:

On this episode, Paul Barclay talks with the Australia Institute’s climate and energy research director, Polly Hemming. There’s no chance of solving Australia’s biggest challenges—inequality and poverty, environmental destruction, climate change and political disillusionment—if leaders aren’t willing to make big decisions and, as Hemming puts it, ‘stop doing bad stuff’.

This discussion was recorded on Tuesday, 18 February 2025, and things may have changed since the recording.

Order What’s the Big Idea? 32 Big Ideas for a Better Australia now, via the Australia Institute website.

Guest: Polly Hemming, Director of Climate & Energy Program, the Australia Institute // @pollyjhemming

Host: Paul Barclay, Walkley Award winning journalist and broadcaster // @PaulBarclay

Show notes:

Offsetting Us Up To Fail: The myths of ‘nature markets’ explained by Richard Denniss and Polly Hemming, the Australia Institute (November 2022)

Around 80% of Australia’s gas is exported as liquefied natural gas (LNG), the gas industry pays ZERO royalties on more than half the gas exported.

Australia has an abundance of gas. In fact, Australia is one of the biggest exporters of gas in the world, alongside Qatar.

Australia Institute research shows over half (56%) of gas exported from Australia attracts zero royalty payments, effectively giving a public resource to multinational gas corporations for free.

It’s time the gas industry started paying its fair share.

There is no gas shortage

The gas industry loves to pretend that we have a shortage of gas. The reason? To use as cover to open new gas fields, most of which will feed their export plants.

We thought we’d better make an ad for that too.

New Australia Institute polling shows that more than twice as many Australians support a power-sharing arrangement in the next term of parliament as oppose one (41.7% vs 19.7%).

And, among Independent and Other voters, more say that independent and minor party MPs holding the balance of power should support the party they believe can negotiate the best policy outcomes for Australia (47.8% and 49.8% respectively) than any other option.

An overwhelming majority (70%) of Australians think that the Senate should review and scrutinise every government policy on its merits, while just 12.2% think that the Senate should support every policy the government took to the election.

Twice as many Australians support an arrangement in the new parliament where the major party shares power and responsibility with crossbench parliamentarians as oppose it (41.7% vs 19.7%). 38.6% don’t know/not sure.

• ALP voters (47.5% support, 11.8% oppose), Greens voters (62.2% support, 5.0% oppose), Independent voters (47.9% support, 10.4% oppose), and Other voters (48.2% support, 14.0% oppose) all strongly support a powersharing Parliament
• Conversely, Coalition (29.6% support, 34.7% oppose) and One Nation voters (28.4% support, 31.4% oppose) oppose power-sharing arrangements more often than they support them

If independent and minor party MPs hold the balance of power after the federal election:

What is a fund?

There is no singular definition for a “fund”; governments regularly refer to a lot of very different things as “funds”. What they have in common is allowing governments to announce big numbers (“we will create an $20 billion fund!”) without spending that amount of money.

I’ll explain why by looking at two categories of funds that governments create: investment funds and investment vehicles. There are overlaps between these categories and all sorts of financial shenanigans, but I’ll keep it simple (ish).

Investment funds

An investment fund is a government investment account, usually involving investments in something like the stock market. Let’s think of it as a bank account that earns interest. Creating an investment fund generally doesn’t have much effect on the budget balance (deficit or surplus): if I take out a $1,000 loan and put it in a bank account, my financial position hasn’t changed (I have $1,000, I owe $1,000, netting out to $0).

Sometimes, governments design funds so that the interest (investment returns) they earn goes to something specific. An example of this type of fund is the Albanese Government’s $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund. Despite constant mentions in the media, this did not directly spend $10 billion on housing; the government basically created a bank account, labelled it “housing”, and then (after negotiations) committed to spend about $0.5 billion each year, a small fraction of $10 billion initially deposited in the account.

Students of communications, humanities and the arts are particularly bad off since the Morrison government came up with the controversial Job-ready Graduates package (JRG) in 2020. JRG increased the cost of law and commerce courses by 28% and saw the cost of humanities subjects more than double. At the time, ministers argued that price incentives would redirect students to STEM, nursing, teaching and other areas.

Before JRG, fees for degrees were justified by some combination of the cost of teaching (for example, teaching dentistry is more expensive than history) or the graduate’s expected earnings (for example law and business graduates tend to earn more than those in creative arts and social sciences). JRG tossed away these justifications. Arts subjects are cheap to teach, and graduates have relatively lower earnings.

The Hubei Association is an Australia-wide community association for those from the Hubei province, whose capital city is Wuhan… the very place where COVID-19 started. How deep does that rabbit hole go?! Somebody please get our best pundits on the case!

Neither campaign ultimately took up the Association’s offer of assistance.

The issue came up in during a regular segment featuring Liberal campaign spokesperson Jane Hume and O’Neil herself on the Seven network. Hume remarked to the minister that there “might be Chinese spies handing out” her how-to-vote cards, but the Liberals had “dozens, thousands, hundreds of young people” on the hustings.

The campaign, which appears to have run out of serious policy, seems to be resorting to a back catalogue of redbaiting and dog-whistling from Cold War-era electioneering. But the history of fearmongering about foreign interference in Australian elections runs deeper.

On April Fool’s Day, the Reserve Bank board decided not to cut interest rates, citing uncertainty about the economy.

At the time we criticised the decision arguing that not only were there enough signs that the economy was faltering and households were hurting, but that given the announcement of Donald Trump’s tariffs two days after the April RBA meeting, the board should have met again, rather than wait till the 20th of this month to make another decision.

Today’s retail trade figures highlight just how badly the RBA has misread the economy.

In the board’s statement in April, they noted:

“Household consumption growth had started to recover in the December quarter, underpinned by the ongoing pick-up in real household incomes. While some of this recovery in consumption appeared to reflect price-sensitive consumers concentrating spending in promotional periods during the December quarter, the pick-up in spending growth among components not affected by sales events suggested there had been a genuine improvement in underlying momentum. More recent indicators signalled that some of this pick-up had been sustained.” [our emphasis]

Well, today’s retail trade figures show the complete opposite. There was no genuine improvement, nor any sense of sustained pick-up in retail turnover.

This was a unity ticket, minus one.

Liberal ACT senate candidate Jacob Vadakkedathu opposed the move. He said that voters tell him, “we don’t need any more pollies”. It’s easy to offer an argument against more politicians in a cost-of-living crisis.

To be fair to Vadakkedathu, the Liberal Party historically had form on senate representation for the territories.

In the 1970s, Liberals opposed the creation of senate seats for the ACT and NT, arguing that the senate might one day be “swamped” by representatives from other territories like the Cocos Islands, and that it might lose its constitutional character as a “states’ house”. They fought against the measure at three successive elections (including one double dissolution) and forced the matter all the way to an historic, deadlock-resolving joint sitting of the two houses in August 1974.

The idea of “swamping the senate” was laughable then, and even more so now. The quota for ACT and NT Senate elections is extremely high. The Labor Party, the Greens and Independent Senator David Pocock all agree that the ACT’s senate representation should (at least) be doubled.

When presented as a Peter Dutton proposal, 61.7% of Australians support the idea that gas exports should be taxed, 11.0% oppose. When presented as an Adam Bandt proposal, 59.0% support the idea and 12.3% oppose.

Furthermore, more than one in two Australians (55.7%) agree that Australia exports too much gas, 12.6% disagree, and an overwhelming majority of Australians (72.3%) support a parliamentary inquiry into whether Australia is getting a fair share of the profits from selling its gas, 7.6% oppose.

“Australia is awash with gas, and our research shows Australians know it. Forcing the gas industry to prioritise Australians ahead of exports is popular at the ballot box, and if would be foolish for whoever forms Government to miss this opportunity,” said Mark Ogge, Principal Advisor at The Australia Institute.

“With all sides of politics finally recognizing Australia’s gas export problems, the next Parliament will be in a good position to do something about it.

“Our research shows that Australians overwhelmingly support the idea that gas exports should be taxed, irrespective of which political party suggested it.”

The Wrap with Amy Remeikis

If the polls, the trend, and the vibe are all right, then voters are about to give the Albanese government another chance.

But you can feel the reluctance.  The only question that seems to remain is whether Labor will govern in its own right, or as a majority.

From the moment he became opposition leader, Anthony Albanese planned on becoming the first prime minister since John Howard to be re-elected.  He wants three terms. The old adage went that if you change the government, you change the country, but Albanese has been around politics long enough to know that’s no longer enough.

If you want to truly change the country, you need about a decade. That gives you time to refresh the statutory appointments, map out foreign relations, change the public service and shift the values of the nation.  It’s an easy criticism that Albanese has no long term plans – he obviously does.

On Thursday, he told reporters he was not a revolutionary, but a reformer and maybe, if his gamble pays off, history will judge him as such.

But his reforms are set at a glacial pace. And the world? Well that’s moving much faster.

And if Albanese and Labor don’t do something with power to measurably improve people’s lives this time around, they risk losing it all.

The Coalition doggedly promised to cut 41,000 public servants in Canberra. Public service minister and Labor’s ACT Senate candidate Katy Gallagher said the number of public servants was “about right”, but as the ABC pointed out, she “did not rule out cuts altogether”.

Her exact words were: “there may be some changes across departments and agencies as programs finish and other priorities ramp up”.

There’s an obvious question here: if there’s still room for greater efficiency in the public service, what good does the annual efficiency dividend on the public service do?

The efficiency dividend was brought in by the Hawke Government in 1987. It forces government departments and agencies to find enough savings and efficiencies in their operations to accommodate a 1% cut in their budget each year.

It’s been around for nearly forty years now, and governments dial it up or down depending on whether they think there’s political advantage in it. But whichever way you look at it, they haven’t worked as intended.

Some would have us believe that if Australian voters do not give one party a majority tomorrow, the nation faces a period of instability, even chaos.

But history tells us there is nothing to be afraid of.

In fact, power-sharing parliaments can be effective and successful.

New research from The Australia Institute analyses 25 Australian elections where no one party won a majority.

What would the negotiations to form government look like? Who would be in the cabinet? Who would be speaker? Who would introduce legislation? How would it be scrutinised?

The report, Forming Power Sharing Government, (attached) examines all these issues and many more.

Key findings:

The paper identifies five things to expect from power-sharing negotiations:

• Negotiations may take time
• Negotiations usually draw on many years of parliamentary experience
• Agreements take a variety of forms
• Agreements may be with the unsuccessful major party, too
• Crossbenchers do not have to go with the party that wins more seats

Across power-sharing parliaments, crossbenchers have negotiated for:

On this episode of Dollars & Sense, Greg and Elinor discuss bracket creep, tariffs and the Aussie dollar, and the great silence about revenue in the federal election campaign.

This discussion was recorded on Thursday 1 May 2025 and things may have changed since recording.

Watch the Australia Institute’s Election Night Live on YouTube, Facebook or our website.

Order ‘After America: Australia and the new world order’ or become a foundation subscriber to Vantage Point at australiainstitute.org.au/store.

Host: Greg Jericho, Chief Economist, the Australia Institute and Centre for Future Work // @grogsgamut

Host: Elinor Johnston-Leek, Senior Content Producer, the Australia Institute // @elinorjohnstonleek

Show notes:

Weirdly for a party that has been criticising the ALP for being big spending, and putting pressure on inflation, the coalition announced that both 2025-26 and 2-26-27 would have bigger budget deficits.

They countered this by forecasting smaller deficits in the final two years of the forward estimates – but one of those year will be after the next election so it is less a forecast and more some numbers that no one thinks there is any hope of being accurate.

So where are the big “savings”? They estimate they will save $17.2bn over 4 years from cutting 41,000 public servants from Canberra.

Apparently, this will not involve cuts or voluntary redundancies or frontline staff or anyone from Defence or security agencies. As Jack Thrower noted, given in December 2024 there were only 69,438 APS jobs in Canberra, once we exclude those areas we are left with 46,293 jobs. So the Coalition costing assumes that nearly 90% of Canberra’s APS will resign over five years. If the Dept of Health counts as frontline, then we’re assuming 99.2% of people quit, and we know the Coalition loves the War Memorial, so if that is also excluded the Coalition is now assuming that over 100% of the remaining public servants will resign.

There was no costing on the nuclear power other than to note it will all be off-budget in a fund, because apparently a nuclear power plant that have no commercial viability will deliver a return on their investment.

Over the course of an election campaign punctuated by about-faces and flip flops, one constant has been Peter Dutton’s use of “clear” and “very clear” in his press conferences.

Based just on the transcripts on his website, he says he’s been clear or very clear on average 3 times per day.

But on April 24 he knocked it out of the park with a score of 23 at a doorstop interview in New Town:

On electric vehicles: “there’s no change in the policy and no, we’ve been very clear.”…“We’ve been clear about that and we’ve been clear in relation to the policies on the EVs.”

On Trump: “We’ve been very clear about what this election is about and it’s about who has the strength of leadership to stand up for our interests.”

On AUKUS: “I think I made clear what I was saying about it.” When prompted further, he said “Well, we can clear it up later, but I’ve gone through it a few times.”

If you’re still not clear on the Coalition’s policies, it seems you’ve only got yourself to blame!

The post This election, Peter Dutton has been repeatedly very, very clear appeared first on The Australia Institute.

1 . Make it illegal to lie in a political ad

Rival claims of misleading advertising from both sides of politics are the inevitable consequence of the absence of Truth in Political Advertising laws.

Almost 9 out of 10 Australians (89%) support Truth in Political Advertising laws, according to research from the Australia Institute.

It’s far from an outlandish idea. In fact South Australia has had truth in political advertising laws for almost forty years. The ACT has had similar laws since 2020. They work.

If the Government and Parliament are serious about addressing misinformation and improving debate, they could pass truth in political ad laws in time for the next election.

2. Reform negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount

The combination of these tax concessions for housing investors has inflated house prices well beyond incomes and made it harder for people to buy a home to live in.

Reforming these two would rebalance the housing market by reducing demand from investors and make it easier for first time buyers.

These two tax concessions are also enormously skewed towards the wealthiest Australians: the richest 10% reap more than half of the benefits.